The Effect of I.T on the Law of Stealing in Nigeria: A Comparative Perspective - Scholars ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Scholars International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice
Abbreviated Key Title: Sch Int J Law Crime Justice
ISSN 2616-7956 (Print) |ISSN 2617-3484 (Online)
Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Journal homepage: https://saudijournals.com
Review Article
The Effect of I.T on the Law of Stealing in Nigeria: A Comparative
Perspective 1*
Ngwu Godwin Emeka , Ogiri, Onyemaechi Titilayo
1
(LL.B, LL.M), Private Law Lecturer, Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Agbani Enugu State, Nigeria
2
Enugu State University of Science and Technology, Agbani Enugu State, Nigeria
DOI: 10.36348/sijlcj.2021.v04i05.001 | Received: 27.02.2021 | Accepted: 17.03.2021 | Published: 04.05.2021
*Corresponding author: Ngwu Godwin Emeka
Abstract
Stealing, generally, has been recognised as a criminal offence and worldwide it has been viewed as the permanent
deprivation of a person's ownership in a property by another. The concept of property has often been limited to material
things which can be transferred to or inherited by another. This paper seeks to shed light on those other things that are not
but should be considered property for the sake of defining the offence of stealing. In doing this, the effect of technology
on the concept of stealing in Nigeria will be examined. A comparative analysis of the Nigerian status and the status of a
few select jurisdictions, as regards the subject matter, will be done. It is believed that at the end of this paper, the concept
of stealing will be viewed broader than it is seen now and that what the average person would normally see as fraud or
"419" (using the Nigerian slang), will be clearly classified as stealing.
Keywords: Stealing, criminal offence, effect of technology, property.
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s): This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License (CC BY-NC 4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial use provided the original
author and source are credited.
donkey or sheep-they must pay back
INTRODUCTION double. If anyone grazes their livestock in
The offence of stealing is probably the most a field or vineyard and lets them stray
common crime being committed on a daily basis all and they graze in someone else’s field,
over the world. Even before the creation of written the offender must make restitution from
laws, the act of stealing has been recognized as an the best of their own field or vineyard….
offence and has often had a reasonable level of If anyone gives a neighbor silver or
punishment meted out on the offenders. Centuries ago, goods for safekeeping and they are stolen
the punishment could be as severe as killing the from the neighbour’s house, the thief, if
offenders and in other cases as light as having the caught, must pay beck double.
offender return the stolen items probably in double or
multiple portions. In the early years of the Israelites, the The clarity of the definition of the offence and
offence was frowned upon and the punishment clearly the accompanying punishment as it operated in the
spelt out as follows: olden days in Israel is an example of the way the
Whoever steals an ox or a sheep and offence was treated in various parts of the world in the
slaughters it or sells it must pay back five ancient days. Various tribes in our indigenous country,
head of cattle for the Ox and four sheep Nigeria, had their ways and manners of dealing with the
for the sheep. If a thief is caught breaking offenders caught in the act of stealing. The punishment
in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the meted out an offenders ranged from banishment to
defender is not guilty of blood shed; but if enslavement and sometimes death.
it happens after sunrise, the defender is
guilty of bloodshed. Anyone who steals The definition and ingredients of the offence
must certainly make restitution but if they of stealing is more often than naught the same in
have nothing they must be sold to pay for various parts of the world. In establishing that the
their theft. If the stolen animal is found offence has been committed, it is primary to point out
alive in their possession-whether Ox or
Citation: Ngwu Godwin Emeka & Ogiri, Onyemaechi Titilayo (2021). The Effect of I.T on the Law of Stealing In 262
Nigeria: A Comparative Perspective. Sch Int J Law Crime Justice, 4(5): 262-271.Ngwu Godwin Emeka & Ogiri, Onyemaechi Titilayo., Sch Int J Law Crime Justice, May, 2021; 4(5): 262-271
that the stolen item belonged to another and not the "property". It must not be something enjoyable by
offender. Once this is established, it is also important to everyone at will. He cited an example of the light in a
show that the offender had the intention to deprive the lighthouse and identified that the owner of the
owner of his title to the stolen object permanently; that lighthouse cannot claim ownership of the beam of light
is, the offender did not just borrow the said item, and and so cannot prevent anyone around the lighthouse
that the offender had successfully moved the stolen item from enjoying the rays provided by the beam of light. It
from the possession of the owner to another location. adds up that the owner of the lighthouse cannot claim to
have been deprived of his ownership in the usage of the
In the past two or three centuries, the act of light merely because others in the surrounding also
stealing has been clearly defined and codified as an make use of it. If he does not want others to enjoy the
offence contravening the laws of the society. Apart usage of the light, all he has to do is to turn the light off.
from enacted laws, the courts of justice have also In his words,
contributed to defining the ingredients of the offence. The primordial principle which
The criminal code act provides that: emerges from the majority judgments
A person who fraudulently takes anything in Victoria Park Racing is that a
capable of being stolen, or fraudulently resource can be propertised only if it
converts to his own use or to be use of is -- to use another ugly but effective
any other person, anything capable of word -- "excludable". A resource is
being stolen, is said to steal that thing [1]. "excludable" only if it is feasible for a
legal person to exercise regulatory
The Supreme court has also opined in control over the access of strangers to
Onwudiwe v. Federal Republic of Nigeria [2] that in the various benefits inherent in the
order to establish a charge of stealing against an resource [5].
accused person, the prosecution must prove the
following ingredients of the offence: (a) that the thing It is therefore easy to identify that in order to
stolen is capable of being stolen; (b) that the accused prove that a person's rights have been deprived in a
has the intention of permanently depriving the owner of property, that property must not only be capable of
the thing stolen; (c) that the accused has unlawfully being stolen, it must be such that is enjoyed by the
appropriated the thing stolen to his own use [3]. owner to the exclusion of the public.
The revered Niki Tobi, J.C.A. (as he then was) The offence of stealing is sometimes referred
also specified the ingredients needed to be proved in the to as Theft and it is sometimes conceived that both are
offence of stealing in Michael Alake & Anor. V. The different offences. The difference, if any, between
state [4] as follows; “Theft” and “Stealing” is in the legislation. Most
For the offence of stealing to be proved, jurisdictions prefer to use the term “theft” to lump all
the thing alleged to have been stolen must crimes against property (larceny, burglary, looting,
be capable of being stolen. To constitute robbery, shoplifting, fraud, embezzlement, etc).
stealing, the taking must be fraudulent Stealing is generally used to describe the action of
and with the intention to deprive the taking something specific [6].
person his permanent ownership of the
thing. In a charge of stealing, proof that The concept of stealing
the goods stolen belong to some person is The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
an essential ingredient of the offence and defines the word "Steal" as "to take something from a
it is the duty of the prosecution to adduce person without permission and without intending to
that evidence. return it or pay for it" [7]. Stealing is the root of all
forms of offences that involves "a taking without
Kevin Gray has stated that in other to claim permission"; these offences include Robbery, Armed
deprivation of a person's rights in a property, that robbery, Housebreaking and Burglary; and so an
property must capable of being referred to as understanding of what Stealing is and what it entails is
1
Section 383(1), Criminal Code Act, CAP 77 LFN
5
1990. Gray K. 1991. Property in thin air. 50 Cambridge LJ
2
(2006) All FWLR (Pt.774) at P.810. 252-307.
3 6
Duru, O.W. The necessity for proof of ingredients of Lee, R.C. Mar. 27, 2015. Is there a difference between
stealing. Legal Essay Series No.7. Retrieved July 23, theft and stealing (legally speaking)? Retrieved July 25,
2019, from https://www.academia.edu/6792870/the- 2019, from https://www.quora.com/is-there-a-
necessity-for-proof-of-ingredients-of-stealing. difference-between-theft-and-stealing-legally-speaking.
4 7
(1991) 7 NWLR (pt.205) 567 at 590. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 6th ed.
© 2021 |Published by Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 263Ngwu Godwin Emeka & Ogiri, Onyemaechi Titilayo., Sch Int J Law Crime Justice, May, 2021; 4(5): 262-271
crucial to understanding what these other offences subject of proceedings of both kinds.
involve. Assault, libel, theft and malicious injury
to property, for example, are wrongs of
Stealing has been identified as the intent to this kind. Speaking generally, in all such
permanently deprive another of his rightful possession cases the civil and criminal remedies are
in a property. The property in question must be such not alternative but concurrent, each being
that is capable of being stolen. As earlier stated, Kevin independent of the other. The wrongdoer
Gray thinks it absurd for a person to claim that his may be punished criminally by
possession in a light has been deprived because another imprisonment or otherwise, and also
makes use of the rays provided by the light. Once the compelled in a civil action to make
property becomes a publicly used one, a person cannot compensation or restitution to the injured
claim private ownership of it anymore. If he desires that person [8].
it becomes private, all he has to do is to turn off the
light or install a bulb that can only be used by him. The main difference between tort and crime is
in the mode of sanctioning. While criminal law is the
Stealing, in the 21st century, has gone beyond concern of the government authorities, law of tort is the
the obvious deprivation of a person's ownership in a concern of individuals. When sectioning offenders of
thing. Technology has affected the concept of stealing both laws, the purpose of tortious remedy is to
in such a way that "permanent deprivation" is no longer compensate the victim while the purpose of criminal
an ingredient of the offence of stealing. This is proceedings is to punish the wrongdoer [9]. However,
especially true in the area of intellectual property and in this age, it is essential to put into consideration the
will be properly discussed in the course of this writing. fact that certain offences which primarily would be
taken to court as civil offences are now gradually
Landed properties can also be stolen these drifting into and now being classified as criminal
days with the use of technology. Apart from forgery of offences, due to the rise in technology and its adverse
documents, landed properties that are not well taken effects. It is often thought that landed properties do not
care of by the owners could be sold by fraudulent qualify as things capable of being stolen because they
people. Pictures of these properties are posted online are not chattels and therefore cannot be moved. Hence,
and marketed for a price, interested buyers indicate encroachment on a person’s right to a landed property
their interest and within a month or two, the transaction has often being viewed as trespass and not stealing.
has been concluded. Usually, the sales of these kind of However, the advancement of technology in this 21st
properties are supported by forged documents which is century, especially as it relates to stealing of ideas,
done by the use of technology. The medium through intellectual properties and even internet data without
which the fraudulent seller and the buyer got in contact necessarily moving the originals from one spot to
is also enabled by technology. With the rise of online another makes one think and wonder whether an
markets like Jumia, Jiji.com, Konga etc, it is very easy infringement on a title to land can still be limited to the
for a fraudulent person to pass off a landed property as civil offence of trespass under the law of tort or
a legally owned one. classified as stealing under the criminal law.
Nexus between law of tort and criminal law on Stealing, now in recent years, has gone beyond
stealing moving a person’s item from one spot to another; it has
R.F.V. Heuston defines tort as a specie of civil gone beyond permanently depriving another of his
wrong or injury and further went on to establish the ownership of stolen items. It is now in an age where an
relationship between the laws of tort and crime. owner can still confidently flaunt his possessions
The distinction between civil and criminal without knowing that another is depriving him of its
wrongs depends on the nature of the benefits. A writer can still have his name established as
appropriate remedy provided by law. A the owner of a literary idea while someone else in
civil wrong is one which gives rise to civil another part of the word makes use of the ideas and
proceedings-proceedings, that is to say, claim its originality as his without the knowledge of the
which have as their purpose the original owner. An example of this is plagiarism.
enforcement of some right claimed by the “Publishing fraudulent data and presenting ideas
plaintiff as against the defendant.
Criminal proceedings, on the other hand,
8
are those which have for their object the Heuston, R.F.V. 1973. The Law of Torts. 16th ed.
punishment of the defendant for some act London: sweet & Maxwell. Chapter 1:8.
9
of which he is accused. It is often the case Clark, J.F, Lindsell, W.H.G. 1969. Clerk & Lindsell on
that the same wrong is both civil and Torts. Ed. A.L. Armitage. The Common Law library
criminal-capable of being made the No.30. 13th ed. London: sweet & Maxwell. Chapter 1:7-
8.
© 2021 |Published by Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 264Ngwu Godwin Emeka & Ogiri, Onyemaechi Titilayo., Sch Int J Law Crime Justice, May, 2021; 4(5): 262-271
attributed to other researchers without appropriate The internet has proven to do a
recognition violates scientific ethics” [10]. The crime of transformative communication tool. So
stealing has advanced even to the level of stealing much so that we’ve bootstrapped a lot of
passwords; this act is commonly known as spoofing. our economy to it… The internet wasn’t
Passwords to internet banking, social media accounts designed with security in mind. Its
and internet data are now capable of being stolen. communication nature is at odds with law
Cybercrime is now on the rise and has even been tagged it is used today. It was designed as a
yahoo by those involved in it in Nigeria. Identities are communication network among small
not left out of the things that technology has made number of computers that were owned by
possible for people to steal. On a daily basis, people are people who knew and trusted each other.
being scammed into entering business transactions The underlying technical infrastructure is
believing that the other party is who he claims to be in not designed for what we’re using it for.
an age when forging an identity card and making it look The unstable nature of internet security
like the original is an easy task for those involved, it is makes stealing intellectual property easy
very easy for an offender to pretend to be a notable compared to physical theft. A digital
person worthy of dealing with in business transactions. burglar can steal from a computer on the
The innocent party who, believing that he is dealing other side of the world, then copy and
with the right person, is dispossessed of his properties distribute the material to a wide audience
which most times is monetary or landed property. The [12]. (Emphasis mine)
crime only becomes obvious after the thief must have
succeeded. “The internet allows people to mask their Though IP theft is hardly new, and some IP
location, their intent, and their identity, and to pretend may still be attainable only through physical means, the
to be someone else” [11]. digital world has made theft easier [13].
Stealing is not operated as it used to be The cybercrime (prohibition, prevention) act, 2015
anymore. Technology has created a huge influence on Cybercrime refers to any criminal activity that
what the offence of stealing is now and it is essential uses a computer as its primary tool. It is also the use of
that the appropriate authorities put this into a computer as a tool to commit fraud, identity theft and
consideration in defining the law as it is today and what violation of privacy. Although cybercrime is committed
it can be in the nearest future. Nowadays, a new trend using a computer network, it is not just about hackers; it
of stealing has evolved. When a bank account is goes beyond hacking passwords and transferring bank
credited with an amount of money, the owner of the account funds [14].
bank account gets a message alert notifying him about
the recent transaction. This was the way people usually The Cybercrime (prohibition, prevention) Act,
confirmed if the charges for goods and services offered 2015 is the Nigerian Act that provides for
has been paid. It is now unsafe to believe that an the prohibition, prevention, detection, response,
account has truly been credited just by receiving the investigation and prosecution of cybercrimes and other
massage alert. A bank customer would have to contact related matters. The Act covers a lot of aspects of
his bank or view his account balance online to verify cybercrimes and provides penalties for offenders of
the status of the recent transaction. The uncertainly of these cybercrimes.
the message alert is as a result of a fraudulent use of
technology whereby someone would get a message alert
of a credit transaction that was never made.
The adverse effect technology is having on the
12
law of stealing is increasing day after day. The way UC Berkley School of Information. Aug.24, 2018.
technology is being used today to perpetrate crimes is in The damaging effects of IP theft. Retrieved July 25,
contrast to what it was designed to do. 2019, from
https://cybersecurity.berkeley.edu/blog/damaging-
effects-IP-theft.
10 13
Gross, C. Jan. 2016. Scientific misconduct. Annual National Research Council. 2000. The digital
Review of Psychology. 67:693-711. Retrieved July 25, dilemma: Intellectual property in the information age.
2019, from https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-Psych- Retrieved July 25, 2019, from
122414-033437. https://www.nep.edu/read/19601/chapter/1.
11 14
UC Berkeley School of Information. The damaging Barfi, K.A., Nyagarme, P., Yahoah, N. 2018. The
effects of IP theft. Aug. 24, 2018. Retrieved on July 25, internet and cybercrime in Ghana: Evidence from senior
2019, from high school in Brong Ahafa region. Library Philosophy
https://cybersecurity.berkeley.edu/bloy/damaging- and Practice (e-journal) 1715. Retrieved July 26, 2019,
effects-IP-theft. from https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1715.
© 2021 |Published by Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 265Ngwu Godwin Emeka & Ogiri, Onyemaechi Titilayo., Sch Int J Law Crime Justice, May, 2021; 4(5): 262-271
The Cybercrime (prohibition, prevention) Act, with their use by the owner, registrant
2015, in a bid to curb internet fraud, provided in section or legitimate prior user, commits an
7 that all cybercafés must first be registered and a offence under this Act and shall be
register of users must be kept by the operators of the liable on conviction to imprisonment
cybercafés. Section 7 (2) provides that: for a term of not more than 2 years or
Any person, who perpetrates electronic a fine of not more than N5,000,000.00
fraud or online fraud using a cybercafé, or to both fine and imprisonment.
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be
sentenced to three years imprisonment or From this section, it is apparent that the
a fine of one million naira or both. Cybercrime Act prevents the theft of trademarks, trade
names and all related names used for business. This is
Section 14 (2) & (3) also provides that: applaudable, however, the Cybercrime Act could have
(2) any person who with intent to defraud gone further to include the protection of all forms of
sends electronic message materially intellectual property, especially copyrights. The absence
misrepresents any fact or set of facts of Copyright as one of the protected aspects in the Act
upon which reliance the recipient or creates a big lacuna in the fight against cybercrime.
another person is caused to suffer any Theft of literary works, songs and even designs are on a
damage or loss, commits on offence and high rise today in the 21st century. Documents that are
shall be liable on conviction to stored on Cloud are also subject to being stolen in the
imprisonment for a term of not less than 5 21st century and are not covered by the Cybercrime
years and to a fine of not less than Act. The protection of these aspects of the business
N10,000,000.00 or to both fine and world is a big determinant to whether cybercrime can
imprisonment. be effectively fought.
(3) any person who with intent to defraud,
franks electronic messages, instructions, A Comparison of the law of stealing in other
super scribes any electronic message end Jurisdictions
or instruction, commits on offence and United States of America
shall be liable on conviction to Innovations are being stolen yearly from large
imprisonment for a term of not more than technology firms, most often, by their employees.
3 years or to a fine of not more than Sometimes, developed countries with an enviable
N5,000,000.00 or to both such fine and economic system are involved in this act of stealing.
imprisonment. China and the United States of America are often at
loggerheads over stolen technology and intellectual
The cybercrime Act also has provisions property. The United states have sued a number of
prohibiting identity theft and impersonation in section Chinese spies to court to face charges bordering on
22; theft of a registered business name, trademark, stealing data, research materials and intellectual
domain name or registered word or phrase in section property.
25; manipulation of Automated Teller Machines (ATM)
or Point of Sales (POS) terminals with the intention to Chinese theft of the United States technology
defraud in section 30; and theft and use of another and intellectual property is on the rise and does not
person’s financial cards without consent in section 33. seem to be stopping anytime soon. On a yearly basis,
The cybercrime Act, 2015 has closed up the lacuna not the United States loses between $225 billion and $600
covered by the Criminal Code Act in the law of stealing billion due to Chinese theft of her intellectual property.
especially as it relates to technology influenced Piracy and counterfeiting have become tools by which
offences. the Chinese industries steal the U.S technology and
despite several appeal to the Chinese government, there
Section 25 of the Act provides as follows: has been a failure to curb the constant theft of the U.S
Any person who, intentionally takes intellectual property. “The two newer forms of
or makes use of a name, business ciphoning off foreign IP value are theft -often cyber
name, trademark, domain name or theft- of extra ordinarily valuable trade secrets and
other word or phrase registered, knowhow, and the technology transfers required of
owned or in use by any individual, American and other foreign companies as a condition to
body corporate or belonging to either doing business on Chinese soil” [15].
the Federal, State or Local
Governments in Nigeria, on the
internet or any other computer
15
network, without authority or right, Goldstein, P., Driscall S. April 4, 2018. Intellectual
and for the purpose of interfering property and china is china stealing American IP?.
Retrieved July 25, 2019, from
© 2021 |Published by Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 266Ngwu Godwin Emeka & Ogiri, Onyemaechi Titilayo., Sch Int J Law Crime Justice, May, 2021; 4(5): 262-271
The United States have employed means of i. Appropriation;
protecting her intellectual property against theft. The ii. Of property;
United States laws enables the United States president iii. Belonging to another;
to “impose trade sanctions against countries that failed iv. Dishonestly;
adequately to protect intellectual property rights” [16]. v. With intention to permanently deprive.
This move has been ultimately used by the United
States to reduce the level of theft of the country’s Section 3 of the Theft Act 1968 defines
technology. “Advancements in technology, increased appropriation as assuming the rights of a legal owner of
mobility, rapid globalization and the anonymous nature the property without consent or with consent if consent
of the internet create growing challenges in protecting has initially been given but withdrawn or abused.
trade secrets [17]. Section 4 (2) of the theft art clearly spells out that land
cannot be stolen except one of the following occurs.
In response to the high rate of cybercrime Where the defendant is a trustee….or has
being committed, the United States has enacted several authorized power of attorney and deals with
laws to battle the offence of fraud and stealing. Notable the property in breach of trust;
amongst them is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of Where the defendant is not in possession of the
1986 (CFAA) codified in 18 U.S.C sec. 1030, which property but appropriates anything forming
criminalizes hacking, identity theft, electronic theft and part of the land by severing or causing it to be
other related activities. It prescribes a punishment of 20 severed;
years in prison, criminal forfeiture, and/or fine [ 18]. Where the defendant is a tenant and
The Act has been amended and updated with sections appropriates the whole or part of any fixture
that expand the reach of the law. [21].
The United Kingdom Another ingredient specified in section 1 of the
The United Kingdom comprising of England, Theft Act is that the property alleged to have been
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have the Theft stolen belongs to another. Section 5 of the Theft Act
Act 1968 [19] as the regulating law for the offence of describes this as meaning that another person other than
stealing. Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 defines theft the thief is the rightful owner and has possession and
as the “dishonest appropriation of property belonging to control of it. The ingredient of dishonesty has to be
another with the intention to permanently deprive the proved by a two-stage test.
other of it” [20]. The ingredients required to prove the According to the ordinary standards of
offence of stealing is practically the same in the UK as reasonable and honest people, was what was
it obtains in Nigeria. The following elements must be done dishonest?
established before the offence of theft can be proven: If it was dishonest by those standards did the
defendant realize that reasonable and honest
people would regard the conduct as dishonest?
https://law.stanferd.edu/2018/04/10/intellectual-
property-china-china-stealing-american-IP/.
16 It must also be shown that there was an
Goldstein, P., Driscall S. April 4, 2018. Intellectual
intention to permanently deprive the owner of his right
property and china is china stealing American IP?.
over the property. This ingredient may be easy to prove
Retrieved July 25, 2019, from
where the stolen property is a physical and tangible
https://law.stanferd.edu/2018/04/10/intellectual-
thing. Will it be so easy to prove where the property is
property-china-china-stealing-american-IP/.
17 intangible such as intellectual property and internet
Gelinne, J., Fancher, J.D., Mossbury, T. July 25,
data? The Fraud Act 2006 is to be applauded for erasing
2016. The hidden costs of an IP breach: cyber theft end
this ingredient and ensuring that the intent to
the less of intellectual property. Deleitte Review issue
permanently deprive the owner does not have to be
19. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from
proved [22].
https://www2.deleitte.com/insights/us/en/delaittte-
renew/issue-19/loss-of-intellectual-property-IP-
breach.html.
18 21
Livney, K., Reed, J. Oct. 16,2018 USA: Cybersecurity Laver, N. Actions undertaken to be guilty of the
2019. Retrieved July 27, 2019, from criminal offence of theft. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from
https://iclg.com/practice-areas/cybersecurity-laws-and- https://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/points-to-prove-
regulation/usa. theft/
19 22
Chap. 60. Laver, N. Actions undertaken to be guilty of the
20
Laver, N. Actions undertaken to be guilty of the criminal offence of theft. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from
criminal offence of theft. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from https://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/points-to-prove-
https://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/points-to-prove- theft/
theft/
© 2021 |Published by Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 267Ngwu Godwin Emeka & Ogiri, Onyemaechi Titilayo., Sch Int J Law Crime Justice, May, 2021; 4(5): 262-271
“Modern technologies, combined with easier Title theft is more difficult to rectify in
access to information, have created new opportunities England if the stolen title has been transferred or
for financial crime. In the case of land, this mortgaged to an innocent party. A land owner had to
phenomenon has become known as 'title theft'”. It used bear the brunt of this new rise of title theft when his 50-
to be extremely difficult to steal land, but modern forms acre portion of land was transferred to another without
of property theft are hard to spot and quickly his knowledge and further mortgaged to secure a loan
accomplished. Fraudsters assume false identities so that of 110 million pounds from Barclays bank. When the
they can pass themselves off as landowners. This suit was heard in court, the court ruled that the title to
enables them to offer the land as security for a loan, or the land be restored to the true owner but that the bank
to sell it to a third party, and then pocket the cash and was still entitled to exercise its power of sale over the
disappear. When the landowner discovers the crime, the land [24].
property is already burdened by a mortgage or has been
registered in the name of someone else. Although the The effect technology has had on stealing is so
number of frauds like this is still relatively low, figures adverse that innocent owners lose their properties with
published by the land registry-the government body little or no remedy available to rectify their titles or
responsible for publicly recording interests in registered return the ownership of the properties to its status quo.
land in England and wales-suggest that title theft is
becoming more common. In addition, identity theft is The United Kingdom has in operation the
becoming more widespread as professional criminals Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the Fraud Act 2006
now target land belonging to complete strangers. [25] prohibiting cybercrimes. The Fraud Act prohibits
fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to
The land registry registers title to freehold and disclose information and fraud by abuse of position.
leasehold land is England and Wales. It has Anyone guilty of these faces a possible imprisonment of
computerized all its records and its electronic registers 10 years or a fine or to both.
of title have replaced old-fashioned title deeds and
document. Land and charge certificates were abolished Ghana
on 13th October 2003. Their disappearance has made it Ghana is one of the fast growing West-African
easier for imposters to impersonate registered economies. A review of the Ghanaian Criminal
landowners because they no longer need to produce the Offences Act 1960 [26] reflects the same criminal law
certificate as proof of ownership in support of a system that obtains in other parts of the continent. The
fraudulent application to change the register. Criminal Offences Act provision on stealing in part 3,
chapter 1, defines the essential elements expected to be
In addition, modern technologies have made it involved before it can be said that a property has been
easier for criminals to obtain counterfeit documents stolen. Section 125 defines stealing as dishonestly
which can be used to represent themselves as the appropriating a thing of which he is not the owner.
registered owner of a piece of land” [23]. The attempts Section 120 provides thus:
and actual theft of land title committed in the united (1) An appropriation of a thing is
kingdom have been audacious. Notable amongst such dishonest if it is made with an intent to
thefts are; defraud or if it is made by a person
A Saudi sheikh owned 47 acre site in Sunning without claim of right, and with a
Dale, Berkshire worth 6.5 million GB pounds; knowledge or belief that the
A 600,000 pounds Victorian semi-detached appropriation is without the consent of
house in Harborne, Birmingham, whose the person for whom he is trustee or who
owners paid off their mortgage and placed the is owner of the thing, as the case may be,
property on the market before going abroad on or that the appropriation would, if known
an extended holiday; to any such person, be without his
14 terraced houses in the same locality targeted consent.
and sold off by a criminal gang in Merseyside; (2) It is not necessary, in order to
An owner-occupied detached house in constitute a dishonest appropriation of a
Manchester which was mortgaged to two thing that the accused person should
different lenders for 111,000 pounds. know who the owner of the thing is, but
24
Pinsent Masons. Aug. 4, 2011. Safeguarding land
against title theft. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from
23
Pinsent Masons. Aug. 4, 2011. Safeguarding land https://www.pinsentmusons.com/out-
against title theft. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from law/guides/safeguarding-land–against-title–theft.
25
https://www.pinsentmusons.com/out- Chapter 35.
26
law/guides/safeguarding-land–against-title–theft. Act no 29 of 1960.
© 2021 |Published by Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 268Ngwu Godwin Emeka & Ogiri, Onyemaechi Titilayo., Sch Int J Law Crime Justice, May, 2021; 4(5): 262-271
that any other person, whether certain or B. An intent to use the thing as a pledge
uncertain, is interested therein or entitled or security;
to that thing whether as owner in that C. An intent to part with it on a
person’s right, or by operation of law, or condition as to its return which the
in any other manner; and person so person taking or converting it may be
interested in or entitled to a thing is an unable to perform;
owner of that thing for the purposes of the D. An intent to deal with it in such a
provisions of this Act relating to criminal manner that it cannot be returned in the
misappropriation and frauds. condition in which it was at the time of
(3) The general provisions of part one the taking or conversion.
with respect to consent and with respect
to the avoidance of consent by force, Just like other jurisdictions, the element
duress, incapacity, and otherwise, apply “permanently to deprive” is present in the Kenyan Penal
for the purposes of this section, except as Code. Technology has also affected the Kenyan
is otherwise provided in this chapter with economy adversely as the internet has aided advanced
respect to deceit. means of stealing. The Kenyan government has
responded to this by enacting the Kenya Information
In as much as the Ghanaian Criminal Offences Communication Act and more recently in 2018, the
Act has provisions prohibiting stealing, technology has Computer Misuse and Cyber Crime Act. The Kenya
imparted the way and manner things are stolen now. Information and Communications Act 1998 [29 ] has
Most notable of the technology affected modes of notable provisions prohibiting cybercrimes. Section
stealing is the internet fraud or scam. Just as the 84B provides that:
Nigerian internet fraudsters are called yahoo boys, the Any person who fraudulently causes loss
Ghanaians involved are called sakawa boys. This form of property to another person by-
of cybercrime has led to the blacklisting of Ghana in Any input, alteration, deletion or
2012 by the Global Financial Action Task Force, for suppression of data; or
money-laundering. The country’s reputation has taken a Any interference with the functioning
hit as a result [27]. of a computer system,
with intent to procure for himself or
The Ghanaian laws prohibiting cybercrimes another person, an advantage, shall
include the Electronic Transitions Act 2008, and commit an offence end shall, on
Economic and Organized Crime Act, 2010. conviction be liable to a fine not
exceeding two hundred thousand shillings
Kenya and or imprisonment for a term not
The law against stealing is codified in the exceeding three years or both.
Kenyan Penal code [28]. Section 268 of the Kenyan
Penal Code defines stealing as provided below. Section 84F provides that:
1. A person who fraudulently and Any person who use secures access or
without claim of right takes anything attempts to secure access to a protected
capable of being stolen, or fraudulently system in contravention of the provisions
converts to the use of any person, other of this part shall be guilty of an offence
than the general or special owner thereof, and shall on conviction be liable to a fine
any property, is said to steal that thing or not exceeding one million shillings or
property. imprisonment for a term not exceeding
2. A person who takes anything capable five years or both.
of being stolen or who converts any
property is deemed to do so fraudulently The Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act
if he does so with any of the following 2018 criminalizes unauthorized access of a computer
intents, that is to say- system with a penalty of Sh10 million fine or a 10 year
A. An intent permanently to deprive the jail term or both. Hacking computers and causing threat
general or special owner of the thing of to national security is punishable by a 10year jail term,
it; Sh20million or both [30].
27
Darko, S. May 10, 2015. Inside the world of Ghana’s
29
internet fraudsters. Retrieved July 26, 2019, from CAP 411A. Laws of Kenya
30
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-32583161. Ondieki, E. May 20, 2018. New cybercrime law is not
too bad. Daily Nation. Retrieved July 26, 2019, from
28
CAP. 63 Laws of Kenya. https://www.nation.co.ke/news/new-cybercrime-law-is-
© 2021 |Published by Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 269Ngwu Godwin Emeka & Ogiri, Onyemaechi Titilayo., Sch Int J Law Crime Justice, May, 2021; 4(5): 262-271
Despite the laws enacted by the Kenyan focus should also be placed on other forms of
government to curb cybercrimes, Kenya lost Sh29.5 cybercrimes that are a threat to the businesses of the
billion to cybercrime last year, a 40 percent increase Nigerian citizenry and other citizens of the world.
from the Sh21 billion loss in 2017 [31]. Today, Nigeria has a bad reputation of being a corrupt
Country with a constant rise in the fraudulent activities
CONCLUSION AND being perpetuated by the Nigerian youths home and
RECOMMENDATIONS abroad. If we observe this incident closely, we will
“The internet has become a double-edged discover that a bad reputation of fraudulent activities for
sword providing opportunities for individuals and any country is a threat to that country's growth and
organizations and also bringing with it an increased when the country stops growing, it will come down to a
information security risk…there is no doubt that decadence in the country's security. This is because,
internet has changed the way business is conducted. lack of growth in a country's business activities
The rapid changes in computer connectivity and automatically leads to a hike in criminal activities and
innovation in digital technology provide numerous criminal activities are most times linked to a breach of
benefits to human life but it is not out of side effects one kind of security or the other. The breach could be
such as cybercrime. Cybercrime is a new wave of physical, when it becomes violent; or it could be cyber,
crimes using internet facilities, which needs to be when it is done online; or it could be fraudulent, when
addressed urgently and earnestly by policy planners to properties and money are stolen. Any form of breach in
protect the young generation as there is a high risk of security involved, the national security is at stake. So, it
becoming a victim of this crime” [32]. is important to have a Cybercrime Act that takes all
these into consideration and is not just based on what it
The Laws regulating the offence of stealing in considers as a big threat to the national security. A
various parts of the world is beginning to recognize the consideration of these aspects and more will enable the
impact of technology and the continual rise of Cybercrime Act effectively capture all forms of stealing
cybercrimes. There is a need to review the laws done through the use of technology.
prohibiting stealing in Nigeria as there is an obvious
lacuna in the Nigerian criminal laws. Although the TEXTS
Cybercrime Act, 2015, has closed the gap to an extent, 1. Clark, J.F, Lindsell, W.H.G. 1969. Clerk &
there is a need to crimanalise intellectual property Lindsell on Torts. Ed. A.L. Armitage. The
thefts. The Criminal Code Act and the Penal Code Common Law library No.30. 13th ed. London:
should also criminalize the acts of cybercrimes. Since sweet & Maxwell. Chapter 1:7-8.
technology has made it possible for someone to steal 2. Heuston, R.F.V. 1973. The Law of Torts. 16th ed.
without physically moving the stolen item and also London: sweet & Maxwell. Chapter 1:8.
without permanently depriving the owner of his title, 3. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 6th ed.
the concept of the act of stealing has to be redefined to 4. The Holy Bible. New International Version. 1984.
capture the impact of technology on stealing in Nigeria.
The existing Criminal Code Act has to include the JOURNAL
possibility of stealing without “permanently” depriving 1. Gray K. 1991. Property in thin air. 50 Cambridge
the owner of the benefits enjoyed thereof. LJ 252-307.
The Cybercrime Act, 2015 majorly focuses on ONLINE SOURCES
cybercrimes that are a threat to the national security of 1. Barfi, K.A., Nyagorme, P., Yeboah, N. 2018. The
Nigeria. While this is not bad, it is thought that major internet and cybercrime in Ghana: evidence from
senior high school in Brong Ahafo region. Library
Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). 1715.
not-too-bhad-says-cs-mucheru/1056-4570728- Retrieved July 26, 2019, from
gag4e6/index.html. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/liphilprac/1715.
31
Sunday , F. May 15, 2019. Cybercriminals up their 2. Darko, S. May 10, 2015. Inside the world of
game, steal Sh30b in one year. Retrieved July 26, 2019, Ghana’s internet fraudsters. Retrieved July 26,
from 2019, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
http://www.standandmedia.co.ke/business/article/20013 africa-32583161.
25495/cybercriminals-up-their-game-steal-sh30b-in- 3. Duru, O.W. The necessity for proof of ingredients
one-year. of stealing. Legal Essay Series No.7. Retrieved July
32
Barfi, K.A., Nyagorme, P., Yeboah, N. 2018. The 23, 2019, from
internet and cybercrime in Ghana: evidence from senior https://www.academia.edu/6792870/the-necessity-
high school in Brong Ahafo region. Library Philosophy for-proof-of-ingredients-of-stealing
and Practice (e-journal). 1715. Retrieved July 26, 4. Gelinne, J., Fancher, J.D., Mossbury, T. July 25,
2019, from 2016. The hidden costs of an IP breach: cyber theft
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/liphilprac/1715.
© 2021 |Published by Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 270Ngwu Godwin Emeka & Ogiri, Onyemaechi Titilayo., Sch Int J Law Crime Justice, May, 2021; 4(5): 262-271
end the less of intellectual property. Deleitte from https://www.nation.co.ke/news/new-
Review issue 19. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from cybercrime-law-is-not-too-bhad-says-cs-
https://www2.deleitte.com/insights/us/en/delaittte- mucheru/1056-4570728-gag4e6/index.html.
renew/issue-19/loss-of-intellectual-property-IP- 12. Pinsent Masons. Aug. 4, 2011. Safeguarding land
breach.html. against title theft. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from
5. Goldstein, P., Driscall S. April 4, 2018. Intellectual https://www.pinsentmusons.com/out-
property and china is china stealing American IP?. law/guides/safeguarding-land–against-title–theft.
Retrieved July 25, 2019, from 13. Sunday, F. May 15, 2019. Cybercriminals up their
https://law.stanferd.edu/2018/04/10/intellectual- game, steal Sh30b in one year. Retrieved July 26,
property-china-china-stealing-american-IP/. 2019, from
6. Gross, C. Jan. 2016. Scientific misconduct. Annual http://www.standandmedia.co.ke/business/article/2
Review of Psychology. 67:693-711. Retrieved July 001325495/cybercriminals-up-their-game-steal-
25, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- sh30b-in-one-year
Psych-122414-033437. 14. UC Berkley School of Information. Aug.24, 2018.
7. Laver, N. Actions undertaken to be guilty of the The damaging effects of IP theft. Retrieved July
criminal offence of theft. Retrieved July 25, 2019, 25, 2019, from
from https://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/points-to- https://cybersecurity.berkeley.edu/blog/damaging-
prove-theft/ effects-IP-theft.
8. Lee, R.C. Mar. 27, 2015. Is there a difference
between theft and stealing (legally speaking)? STATUTES
Retrieved July 25, 2019, from Criminal Code Act.
https://www.quora.com/is-there-a-difference- Computer Misuse and Cybercrime Act 2018.
between-theft-and-stealing-legally-speaking. Cybercrime (prohibition, prevention) Act 2015.
9. Livney, K., Reed, J. Oct. 16,2018 USA: Ghanaian Criminal Offences Act 1960.
Cybersecurity 2019. Retrieved July 27, 2019, from Kenya Information Communication Act 1998.
https://iclg.com/practice-areas/cybersecurity-laws- Kenyan Penal Code.
and-regulation/usa.
10. National Research Council. 2000. The digital CASES
dilemma: Intellectual property in the information 1. Onwudiwe v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2006)
age. Retrieved July 25, 2019, from All FWLR (Pt.774) at P.810.
https://www.nep.edu/read/19601/chapter/1. 2. Michael Alake & Another v. The State (1991) 7
11. Ondieki, E. May 20, 2018. New cybercrime law is NWLR (pt.205) 567 at 590.
not too bad. Daily Nation. Retrieved July 26, 2019,
© 2021 |Published by Scholars Middle East Publishers, Dubai, United Arab Emirates 271You can also read
